We have no one to blame but ourselves

We live in a time where victimhood is king. Once we declared that equality was the law of the land, or at least what the crowd would chant for in rage, it became clear that we must raise up the less-than-equal and if it happened at the expense of the more-than-equal, that was too bad, because they had enough.

In wealth, this means that “the Rich™” gave up some of their wealth to “help” the rest, and in socialization, it means that we stop looking at A-average football players and pay attention to the nerds (and hey, I was one once… or maybe still partially am). It appeals to our inner humanity, our sense that if we are not included in the group regardless of our failures, the group is somehow bad: the enemy.

With an egalitarian society, only the victims become King. Society owes them something and those who do not hand it over are bad and evil. Through this, we are trained to justify — or argue for after the fact, according to our intent as consistent with the dominant paradigm — our positions as those of victims. With victimhood, we can force others to recognize us.

A side-effect of this is that those who want realistic leadership in the West have started framing their viewpoints through the victimhood narrative. In order to partake of this, we must portray ourselves as victims unjustly persecuted by some easily-eliminated foe, which like The Rich™ can be simply executed or fined and then justice magically prevails.

Among people who have recognized the displacement of indigenous Western European peoples, this takes the form of:

Democracy? Equality? We didn’t do this. The Jews™ did it to us; either them, or the banksters. They manipulated us with their news programs, entertaining movies and newspapers. We are innocent victims of corrupt controllers!

The problem with this is that it misses the point. In its urge to appeal to the sensibilities of the Crowd, it bypasses the actual causes. In addition, it emasculates us by forcing us to portray ourselves as victims on bended knee. And possibly worse, by the nature of scapegoating, which is what it is actually doing, it makes us likely to do horrible things in the name of justice while ignoring actual justice.

Even more, it puts us in a passive position, like sitting to pee. We deny our own responsibility to act responsibly, such as by assessing media and ignoring the insane and acting on the realistic. Instead, we portray ourselves as children, acting foolishly just because the glowing box tells us it’s OK to do so. We remove from ourselves the responsibility to shape our own destiny, and to make rational decisions to that end. That neuters us and makes us weak.

As often is the case, the grim reality behind the decline of our society is that it is mundane. There are no exotic causes; human weakness outweighed common sense, and then power was handed to the democratic herd which proceeded to ruin everything through its tendency to project wishful thinking over reality. When democracy seems like a good option, your society is already exhausted of energy and is merely looking for a compromise.

There is no complexity to this. Our society grew, it prospered, and then it faced disasters. The Mongol invasion. The Black Plague. But mostly, it faced its own prosperity. People no longer had to prove they knew what they were doing in reality. They only had to become popular enough that others would nod and say, sure, he’s a good fellow.

We need look no further than that. We succeeded, and as is the nature of success, we were challenged by others. While our best fought off the threats, our worst gathered and plotted. Then they had their revenge, and took over, and although it took them two centuries, by the 1990s they had control, and since then, they’ve run our society into the ground.

Our response to this should not be to try to compete with them on the basis of victimhood. Those who cannot succeed in reality and depend upon group approval to thrive will always be bigger victims. They will offer a Devil’s Bargain: join us, and get free stuff from our betters; you cannot match that for no-accountability all-reward deals! Nor can we beat them by being more egalitarian; they have no standards — what is more egalitarian than that?

Instead, we should take responsibility for our past. We made a boo-boo. We accepted the equality of all people in lieu of demanding that people prove themselves through creativity, loyalty and real-world results. As a result, we were overrun by incompetents.

All of the people blaming The Jew&trade, The Rich™ or other scapegoats are concealing this fundamental truth: we did this to ourselves by accepting equality as a notion. Even if we destroy all of those scapegoats, our problem remains. We have to fix the problem, or it ends us.

Victimhood is the opposite of responsibility because victimhood necessitates scapegoating. We cannot simply say, “The gods screwed us,” as William S. Burroughs suggests is healthier. We must blame someone for our own failings. This leads us away from the obvious, which is to look at where we went wrong and to correct it.

Amerika the blog will never be as popular as those blogs which say, “There, there, little Caucasian. Some horrible Other did this to you, and you do not need to change yourself, at all.” Those blogs offer a scapegoat and an emotionally-satisfying story of the white victim versus the other.

But that mentality puts us in the position of meek underlings, not conquerors. We need to instead regain our role as leaders and conquerors. We can only do that by identifying our bad decision, sucking it up and admitting our mistake, and then choosing a new direction. Let us finally escape the past of error. But first, we must become accountable for our mistakes, and for the duty to overcome them.

To accomplish this, of course, requires one to believe in inequality among Whites. Which, of course, is obvious. But so many on our side refuse to accept it. Followers, get in line. It’s time for a new aristocracy of European warriors and conquerors.

I am really digging your stop-being-a-victim analysis. It is quite though-provoking and true.
It doesn’t quite yet, to me, address directly an important point:
Once we start successfully acting as you prescribe, we will indeed be attacked.
I guess we can simply treat the struggle as a conflict or war, and not call ourselves victims, but even now in the early stages, we are indeed being attacked.
And when we start deporting, there will be blood. Those being deported will not go willingly. They will fight. They will lie, cheat, dissemble, distort, and manipulate. The struggle will be very hard to differentiate from what you call scapegoating.

This may very well have to take the form of post-American feudalism. Neo Crusades and all of that. At this point, it seems to me that it will take that kind of a desperate situation for any possible Aristocracy to take power.

While I would concede merely pointing fingers isn’t the equivalent of implemented solutions, the “reality” of the matter is that implemented solutions are a product of group think and group action in any society that can’t even find its way back to minarchy. Pointing accurate fingers is conducive to educating the illiterate masses what is more.

Surely the redistribution “equalitators” of “democracy”, for lack of a more vague label, are at the core of the redistribution equalitating. While maybe, for the enlightened and informed, less vague intelligible and demonstrable connections need not be shown, that shouldn’t one to conclude that demonstrable connections to the socialist democracy theocracy need be hidden either.

(And I quote):

“There are no exotic causes; human weakness outweighed common sense, and then power was handed to the democratic herd which proceeded to ruin everything through its tendency to project wishful thinking over reality.”

I didn’t realize anything about the last century of fractional reserve fiat lending or manifest destiny dominionist think, never mind before, was ever steeped in “REALITY”. And what could have destroyed the nation more than thieving, bankrupt banking and economics, in conjunction with the democratization, socialization, proxy wars, wars, arming, aiding, and nation-building of Jews and Muslims, on the backs of US taxpayers and their future unborn I can’t imagine.

Yet you state that asserting(And I quote):

“‘The Jews™ did it to us; either them, or the banksters’ misses the point.”

What I know is that nature didn’t get the nation to where it’s at, and the objectivist life, liberty, and property of the Founders now lives in a galaxy far, far away. That’s “reality”, a word you keep using irrespective of knowing what it means.

implemented solutions are a product of group think and group action in any society that can’t even find its way back to minarchy

This is true, but it does not require the whole group, only a relatively small but focused subset. For this reason, there is no point trying to appeal to the masses and distorting the message in the process.

Further, what then, exactly, are you insinuating the message is, beyond, “You’re to blame, but a relatively small but focused subset” is going to fix things.

I don’t think we’re going to agree on the finer points, beginning with people such as myself aren’t to blame as to anything. I think if you had lived my life to tell about it I’d have some respect for you just as an initial matter. I don’t know how or in what “environment” you grew up, but I’m sensing the concrete “jungle” detached from reality and real work type.

You summarily threw the history of libertarians, anarchists, and otherwise under the bus in a pinnacle of either intellectually bankruptcy or dishonesty what is more.

The masses are to blame but are irrelevant self-contradiction is pretty much a non-starter as far as I am concerned, particularly when one is speaking to more bureaucratic societies rather than limited government, libertarian, or anarchial societies.

You can’t have it both ways if you’re wishing to be taken seriously as offering a “solution” irrespective of the logical fallacies and “ambiguous” dilemma to begin with.

I think there are aspects of cumulative selfishness that democracy and individualism fail to reign in, but I don’t think the solution is authoritarianism and deporting/killing the other.
I also think you can’t really blame our problems on democracy and egalitarianism, because we aren’t actually that democratic or egalitarian.
“We live in a time where victimhood is king.” And yet many people actually have been victimized by the last several hundred years of history. Colonialism, slavery and genocide being the most obvious examples. I agree that a world defined largely by ethnic boundaries is a better one, but it is European colonization and free market capitalism that has destroyed that, much more than the leftists attempts to at least redress some of the grievances of the underprivileged.
In our current system, we are economically oppressed rather than oppressed by force. You can’t say egalitarianism is largely to blame, when the current system is still incredibly top heavy. Even young people investing in serious professional skills, college and then grad school, are often seriously struggling under basic costs of living and education.

Yes there are many cultural nods to egalitarian rhetoric, and even some partial attempts to address the economic imbalances, such as affirmative action. In addition to genuine liberal sentiments, part of this is also due to the fact that non white people can also make excellent mindless consumers and wage slaves.
The United States isn’t a democracy, it’s a businessocracy or an oligarchy. Neither traditional conservatism or liberalism are currently winning.
I’ve also noted that the leftist ideal isn’t forced equality, but rather equality before the law and a guarantee of some basic rights, including the prevention of blatant abuses.
If someone is not scared of being murdered, and has enough to eat (even if through socialist programs such as food stamps and welfare), it frees them up to invest in real personal value and development, such as higher education.
Do welfare and other programs incentivize laziness and weakness? For some people yes. But that’s not such a terrible thing. I’m okay with these people being on welfare rather than at McDonalds. Though I realize you would rather just see them die. And if we handled our resources better, we would indeed have some (maybe a lot) of extra to go around.

More importantly, the path to personal growth, education, serious development becomes much more available for a great deal of people who want it, but are normally crushed by circumstance. In terms of the nature nurture debate, research certainly does show that nurture is important and some contexts overwhelmingly produce better outcomes than others. Well fed children learn to read better than starving children. Obviously.
I’ve basically said all this before but I think it bears repeating, though I’m still working on how to articulate it better. In terms of economic theory, I do not think that a rising tide lifts all boats. In terms of social theory, I think it basically does.

A very different question I am genuinely curious about: If you’re long dreamed of revolution went through, would you deport me or want me on your team? Believe it or not I actually have a high IQ and a great deal of personal strength of character.

What you are defending is against Nature. There is no universe in which the past century’s oppressions are magically more important than all others before it. Furthermore, the people complaining about oppression are people who have never experienced it. You are asking for all of humanity to exist under a non-government withing a non-culture and to abandon animal natures which they never can because most can never be made aware of them. You are also asking for the most able to facilitate the least able and to call this autonomy.

Equality before the law is not only bullshit rationalizing, it is also literal. Liberals want equality to come before any legal concerns. Educational opportunity has never been more low or more watered down. Sure, anybody can access information on the internet or go to college but, standards for the presentation of information are lower than they have ever been and the other you want to keep around so badly are the least able to educate themselves on any advanced subject matter.

“Do welfare and other programs incentivize laziness and weakness? For some people yes. But that’s not such a terrible thing. ”

Yes, it is a terrible thing.
Noah, you make a lot of claims that are really your preferences, not backed up by anything other than… your feelings?

Regardless, what we have to look forward to is absolute catastrophe, in terms of economic, social, political and cultural collapse. See, for example, “Convergence of Catastrophes” by Guillaume Faye. He does provide evidence. Of course, he could be wrong, and so could I, but only for a while. Overpopulation (as Brett has talked about in numerous articles) guarantees that we will go through a population bottleneck. See William Catton’s book “Overshoot,” from about 1980. The problem with liberalism and egalitarianism is that is simply makes the eventual die-off bigger: importing a surplus population into North America, which is already overpopulated in terms of what can be supported without depleting non-renewable resources, simply ensures social chaos and rivers of blood.
Well, Brett and others have written at length about it, but I can say I empathize, Noah: I used to think like you, until I realized that I was not thinking, but wishing.
Finally, we on the far-right or revolutionary conservatives simply have completely different views of what creates human thriving. I don’t see much chance for compromise, do you?

We are to blame all right I will take my fair share of it to. The race trader that I have not punished personly in a meaninful way. That is the mistake we have made.
Let me coin a phase that is my very own
Hey race trader how is your money now!!
When the piss and moan about that say. Go pick up your money from the jews!! When they piss and moan about that. Well it must escalate you must escelate it. They will rain curses on you they will pray strait to the devil when the call you a racist. The safety of the race trader be dammed. What safety or quarter are the giving you none

Shoot, scratch that, screen wasn’t displaying one for a bit.
Still I also wanted to publish the comment with this article, which makes a lot of important points: http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2013/01/no_self-respecting_woman_would.html
About how structures and systems concede the trappings of power, while retaining actual power. Meaning you can’t blame egalitarianism for our problems, because we aren’t actually that egalitarian.

Shoot this is the article I thought I had posted earlier, but the comment got lost or something.http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2013/01/no_self-respecting_woman_would.html
Talks about how how systems concede the trappings of power, while retaining actual power. While we have many cultural nods towards egalitarianism, I don’t think we actually are that egalitarian. Which means I do think we can still blame our many problems on top down authoritarianism.
A separate thought:
“The Plague was no disaster. It was a gift. It was Mother Nature clearing out the weakest of the weak, leaving the best and toughest behind to pass their superior genes on.”
No, it weeded out people who’s genes weren’t resistant to that specific disease. Doesn’t necessarily make those genes resilient in regard to other challenges and conditions. How does this not occur to you? Another example of sloppy thinking more focused on justifying a smug sense of personal superiority than an accurate depiction of reality. Bound up with the unquestioned assumption that you certainly wouldn’t be one of those “weaklings” who succumbed to the plague.
“The idea that disease is something that falls on our heads from up above, for no reason, goes hand in hand with playing victim of various powerful minority groups.”
So people who get sick just need to take personal responsibility? It’s always a character flaw rather than a need for medical care?
Real life is an interplay between being in control and being out of control. Control is a question of degree rather than an absolute. Simply saying that anyone with a bad lot in life is “playing the victim” is stupid. As is the presumption that anyone with a good lot in life is superior in some ways.
Anyone who tries to frame it in all or nothing terms is selling something. Good luck taking charge of the big picture with such sloppy thinking.

“Well that’s a start.”
Why do you assume you would have been one of the Ubermensches with superior genetics who survives the plague? Have you talked with your genes recently about what they are and aren’t immune to. If you didn’t have disease resistant genes, would you actually be okay with dying to strengthen the whole?
Isn’t this nonsense a thinly veiled justification for a sense of personal superiority not based on anything in the real world?

The leftist has a seriously narrow view of things, and never questions the existence of anything beyond that soda-straw view.
This is one result of dogma-ingestion. A narrowing-down of possibilities, to: one view fits everything and everyone.

That anybody else might be differently motivated, or perceive things differently, never occurs.

Feel free to not publish the superfluous ones. Including this.
But the most recent one with the article and the reply to social darwinism, yeah put that one in.
And I’m very curious about what I asked up above. If your revolution went through, would you deport me or want me on your team?

I agree that if we talk about the decline ONLY as something that has been done TO us then this COULD have the effect of creating a passive mentality, and lead to thinking that the ONLY solution is to punish those that have inflicted it. But laying the blame TOTALLY on ourselves is also wrong – because it is not true. Altruism, in itself, is not the problem, either. The problem has been wicked people USING the populace’s altruism to support SEEMINLGLY-sensible policies that have instead had the same effect as a (slow-motion) socialist revolution. Even as recently as the 70’s and 80’s MOST PEOPLE did not want to see socialism of the type we have now – and yet it has emerged, nonetheless. People have been LED all the way ‘here’ at every step. I’m sure you would agree with this, too, so please do not view the fellowing as a refutation of your article, there’s hardly a sentence you wrote I disagree with. I am simply offering some further clarification, some extra suggestions, plus a refutation of “Noah’s” incorrect assertion that the left only believe in ‘equality of opportunity.’

The 20th-century history of England furnishes us with sufficient examples of how the procedure has worked out, time and time again. Before the ‘Welfare State’ started, 99.9% of men WANTED to work. Yet, if their factory burned down or the there was a slight dip in the market such honourable men would instantly find themselves in a position were they were starving and had to send their families to the workhouse – due to no FAULT of their own. So having a system of insurance, whereby if they lost their job (due to circumstances out of their control) they could still JUST survive until they found another position, seemed like an idea worthy of support. People naturally wanted to minimise the BAD that could happen to the good, decent and honest.

Here’s the problem, though: this was still a world were people were so upstanding that they would be to ashamed to take charity. So when people accepted the idea of such National Insurance, they simply did not envision that within 2/3 generations the policy would have led to whole neighbourhoods were everybody PREFERRED to receive benefits instead of work. By then, the benefits had been hiked-up to the point were they had actually became a constant system of redistribution from the remaining honest people to a new underclass of ‘takers’ – who could all be relied upon to keep voting left. Which was, of course, the INVENTORS of this system’s original intention – they just simply never mentioned their TRUE intentions.

But because “the people” were still so honest, almost to a man, they mistakenly expected their elites not to lie to them, either. They weren’t used to dealing with people who could tell lies to their faces, and with a straight face. And, admittedly, they didn’t quite have the capacity to see the the longer-term possible consequences as well as the leftist elite in the academy could see them. These two things are ‘our’ only mistakes. Not ACCEPTING socialism, but simply being DUPED. What the people ‘got’ was NOT what they voted for.

We should also not forget that the people have had NO real (democratic) choice in this for a few decades – EVERY single candidate, Democrat and Republican, pretty much accepts the precepts of Modernism – except for those few renegades who are instantly destroyed by the media elite.

Another example is abortion (whatever your views on this, the implementation procedure for society has been the same). When the Steele Act was being put to the people it only justified abortion under 3 circumstances: a woman who had been raped, a serious chance of handicap to the infant or a SERIOUS risk to the mother’s health. Nobody ever voted for it so women who couldn’t be bothered dealing with the consequences of their actions, or who wanted to be ‘independent’ of men, could kill the child in their wombs (which of course was the leftist feminist’s REAL goal). So, once again, people voted for something out of genuine altruism (who wants to tell a raped girl she HAS to have the baby etc.) when really the leftists were always relying on the ‘woman’s health’ clause being misinterpreted to include ‘anything that makes her unhappy’ being a sufficent reason, so that today ANY woman can now legally commit infanticide on a whim, with millions doing so. Again nobody imagined the current situation would occur in a thousand years – it was so far removed from the world in which they grew up.

Now here’s another example, and a much better one, as this also exposes the Left’s REAL ideas about Equality (but this time ‘we’ DO have some of the blame). Let’s first accept that equality UNDER THE LAW is a good thing. If we don’t, then we have accepted a world were the Strong (which it is VITAL to understand are NOT always identical with the Good) could, for example, decide to take all of your grain that you have sensibly stored up for lean times. Again, it would mean BAD would be much more likely to happen to many of the Good, through no fault of their own. And although the left say this type of equality is their only aim, this next move of theirs shows their real objectives.

Because in England we HAD a perfect system. Free education, of superb quality; and at age 11, the sheep would be separated from the goats. All kids leaving primary school would take the ’11-plus’ exam. The lower 80% would then go to a ‘technical college’ that would teach them the practical skills used in the manual trades they were better suited for.

But, crucially, those scoring in the top 20% (at most) would then be given free ‘Grammar School’ education, which was actually of the same quality as that from our most elite private schools.

Rigorous, academic subjects were taught well, ending in difficult exams in which only the talented would succeed. Moral character was also formed, as in the ancient world, by using the Classics such as the Iliad and the Aeneid to give examples of greatness from the past. The rigorous teaching of history gave pupils a real sense of pride in the nation’s past and hence a desire to ‘live up to’ these ideals in the future, as well as learning to avoid certain pitfalls seen in previous centuries.

And the results? The boards of directors of the Empire’s companies were FULL of lads from working-class, poor, backgrounds who had PROVEN themselves to be of equal intelligence and aptitude to those born rich. As were our elite Universities – and Parliament. This was unthinkable a century earlier, when the only people who achieved great things were born rich. The less-clever benefited too: that lower 80% all left school at age 14 and got jobs were they could provide for their families instead of being forced, like they are today, to waste another 4 years learning watered-down subjects they didn’t have the aptitude to study. The results was that a larger proportion of society’s members reached their FULL POTENTIAL – probably the best indicator of a healthy society. Notice, this wasn’t TAKING from the rich to give to the poor (the cost of having one extra school in each town was easily paid by local authorities). It simply created more competition in society. And people learned that RESULTS mattered.

So the leftists were overjoyed at this… surely? The conditions for ALL the poor were better, and those dreaded class-barriers were broken down. Social mobility was up. So how did the Left respond? By totally destroying this system, under a leftist Labour government in the 60’s! Their only argument against it? Not EVERYBODY was bright enough to go to a Grammar School – so it made people unequal! Even though the condition of the poorest was much better than before the system, they would often talk about the HURT FEELINGS of those who failed the 11-plus and so felt like ‘second-class’ citizens from that age (the main proponents of this argument all had sons who had failed the exam, naturally). So they invented the idea of ‘Comprehensive’ Education – were the smart were taught alongside the dumb. They even ADMITTED this would not give the brightest kids the same education they had had under the Grammar School system – but it was much, MUCH more important that everybody should be equal, of course. “What is you aim with introducing the Comprehensive system” one Labour MP was asked. To help the poor even further, did he respond? “To destroy every fucking Grammar School in the country” was his word-for-word answer. Leftism is, and always has been, a DESTRUCTIVE ideology, based on envy. And, of course, they didn’t want the proles learning TOO much and then (naturally) rejecting leftism. And so the Grammer Schools were abolished.

The effect of THIS? Today, if you’re born to a poor family, but are naturally clever, you now have practically zero chance of getting a good education – and will stay poor. With the rich STILL have their elite schools, all the same! Every measurable statistic has consistently shown that social mobility has gone down. So, has the Labour Party admitted its error? No. Not ONE single MP supports the reintroduction of this system, to this day. Because people are now more equal – equally bad. To a leftist, that’s a result. Please mention this example to any liberal who says all they really want is equality of opportunity.

I’ve gone into detail about this last one as it demonstrates what I feel is the surest way to get us out of the mess we’re in, over the long-term: number one, forget about egalitarianism as an ideology straight away – but DO accept that giving more people a chance to improve THEMSELVES and their lot is a good thing for society. Other than defense and infrastructure, the ONLY thing a country should spend tax on is a system of rigorous, competitive education where only the BEST are rewarded. It is an investment that pays off, and handsomely. Giving people indefinite monetary handouts is the OPPOSITE of this, and only removes the impetus to improve.

Let us teach all to have pride in the history of their people’s achievements and they will naturally want to emulate the Great Men of the past (and so will make sure egalitarianism is never resurrected again!) It will also furnish them with examples of all those civilisations who failed because they made wrong decisions – which will finally give Pluralism its long-overdue execution, as people realise that their IS, for each circumstance, a right decision to make. Give them REALISTIC advice throughout their schooling about what they CAN achieve, given their skills, instead of just letting them choose whatever specialist subjects they ‘like’. Most of all, we should foster environments in which Transcendent values and beliefs can once again flourish.

And THEN, after one or two generations, a new elite will ORGANICALLY form. We CERTAINLY do NOT want an HEREDITARY elite because, quite simply, no man, no matter how great, is certain to produce great offspring. Think William Rufus after William the Conqueror. Think Edward II after Edward I. Hereditary systems REDUCE competition, which only means one thing for any society: stagnation. Neither will this new elite NEED to be repressive – if everybody has been given an equal opportunity to develop their natural talents, then if a person still achieves little it is only his own fault, or his lack of natural talent. So, even though there will still be losers who will envy their betters, they will no longer have a scapegoat to blame. If they DID try to invent one (and used it as an excuse for insurrection) then that would be, admittedly, the time to remove their liberty/heads.

Instead, what we would then have is a continuous caste SPECTRUM (as opposed to a rigid 3-way system, or whatever). And we would also have, unlike today, the critical mass of intelligent, moral people required to make sure each new generation thrived more than the last.

This lumps everyone together as if everyone supported the current system. There has always been a very sizeable portion of the US against every single leftist law, continuously since the inception of the country. This essay even has an accusatory tone as if I, or the other dissenters, had been supporters due to personal weakness, and only now are waking up to the horrors of leftism. This implication is not to be taken lightly, and is as offensive as spitting in one’s face.

All you ever say is either ad hominem or strawman, while only addressing the comment in the most tangential way possible. You go by the very Jewish mantra of: admit nothing, deny everything, make counter-accusations. This is the most obvious way to spot a leftist. You are overzealous in its application thus rendering your motives transparent.

“Any rewrite of history is an insult to anybody with skin in the game. But this is the constant preoccupation of the left.” He meant this as an ad hominem accusing me of leftism, though from my perspective, he outs himself.

“Desire -> Comparison -> Resentment -> Separation -> Loathing -> Self-Loathing -> Guilt disguised as Care -> Obsession -> Rage -> Insanity.” This is an ad hominem fallacy. He is calling me insane, or some other term from this list or pejoratives.

“Most of your nuclear salvos signal enraged leftism. Did you know that?” This is an ad hominem fallacy. Again, he accuses me of leftism.

“All you have is a brain, spinning like a hamster’s wheel, going nowhere for all its feverish activity.” Another ad hominem fallacy that does not address my comment.

These are examples just from his comments on this essay, but it is his modus operandi. At no point does he actually address anything I said, just mindlessly calls me leftist in ‘clever’ ways. In thoroughly convinced he’s a jew now; they mostly behave in this destructive fashion. I can only assume he wants the kohanim to be the new nobility, and his purpose here is to help accept them.

These were in response to points I made, so it is presumed he meant these comments to disprove my points; therefore, “Because you are stupid, your point is wrong.” is a perfect summary of his comments, although you can substitute “leftist” for “stupid” in that summary. We can rename it the “crow fallacy” in such cases.

Who’s “we”?
Although it goes beyond your experience, crow does not do fallacy. Leftists do fallacy, and attribute it, and all their craziness, nastiness, and flaws in general, to everybody else.
“We” can refer to that as the ‘5h inversion’.

Yes. I am something you have never seen, and have no way of understanding. All you have is a brain, spinning like a hamster’s wheel, going nowhere for all its feverish activity.
I have the whole of Reality behind, and with me. You could, too, if you even knew what Reality was.

My long posts are well reasoned and to the point. There really are a lot of holes in your logic. Saying the Black Plague weeded out weaklings really is very weird for the reason I stated. And it does seem to carry the implication that the poster would definitely have been one of those to survive it.
“Take responsibility!” is also often used in an overly general way. I actually resonate with the idea that many people could use to get smarter, tougher and tighten the belt so to speak. And yet, as I said, life is an interplay between being in and out of control. Context certainly does count, and if the world is much much bigger than me, I can’t necessarily be to blame for all my problems.
This is again very general. But speaking a bit more specifically, I do generally support the principle of wealth redistribution and aid to the poor. I doubt I fit your normal stereotypes of a leftist. I go into the local inner city and get disgusted at the ugliness and many human pieces of trash. And yet to me, it seems obvious that context does count, and although they piss me off, these people do deserve a shot at a better life. I also think that the distribution of real wealth and power in our society isn’t a little bit top heavy; it’s extremely top heavy. I don’t think you can blame our society’s problems on egalitarianism, because we aren’t that egalitarian. Yes there are many cultural nods to it, partially because dark skinned people also make good consumers. But the real power dynamics are very undemocratic indeed. Hence the article I linked to that talks about how systems concede the trappings of power while retaining actual power.
But I’m guessing none of you read it, because you are too reality centered to have to think much about opposing viewpoints.
And thank you Brett.

Strongly agree with the first, disagree with the second. I think we have more legal guarentee of certain rights but wealth inequality is larger than ever.And I do think our society has made social progress in some ways.The ennui and materialism is I think a separate issue. As for the third… How? That hasn’t at all been my impression of your program. I vaguely recall you writing that most people are inferiors that should work on the estate of the royalty without access to an education.Typing this on a phone so yeah a little condensed.

I think we have more legal guarentee of certain rights but wealth inequality is larger than ever.

I am not sure that wealth inequality is by itself a problem. It depends on who has the wealth and their inner traits, like moral character and intelligence.

The ennui and materialism is I think a separate issue

Is it? People work too much, fear for their jobs, and then compensate with shallow materialism.

I vaguely recall you writing that most people are inferiors that should work on the estate of the royalty without access to an education.

Education is not the only way to rise; as an esotericist, I recognize that learning is dependent on the learner and mostly on innate biological/genetic traits like intelligence. A good worker will rise with a good master.

In fact, I think education is mostly a waste of time. It teaches people methods that they do not understand how to apply, and substitutes good memorizers with bad reasoning ability for good reasoners who memorize little. Crow’s comments on the intellect being deceptive come in play here. Intuitive learners are a different category, and they suffer in schools, mostly from boredom ;)

“It depends on who has the wealth and their inner traits, like moral character and intelligence.”
If someone is struggling for basic survival, they are not gonna reach their full potential.
Nurture does matter. Think the Proles in 1984.
And wealth commands power. If the wealth is grossly imbalanced, it probably means the real power dynamics are grossly imbalanced, regardless of workplace mandated sensitivity training, which I also find annoying.
“People work too much, fear for their jobs, and then compensate with shallow materialism.” Strongly agree. I just don’t relate this to egalitarianism. Not sure what I do relate this to. I know what gives my life meaning (I have a spiritual path I am strongly committed to), and how much it hurts to be lacking this. But I am wary of projecting this onto other people. Some people are okay without a strong religion, or even a more existentialist personal path. Strong social bonds definitely do help battle ennui though, and I think the left’s emphasis on nurture and care for the weaker among us does promote that.
The education bit: I don’t know. I just wasn’t used to thinking along the lines of what you just suggested.
I was an intuitive learner who was bored in school, and yet I feel like I know more for my time in school. I would have preferred it to entering the workplace at that age. But that’s partially because I was a sensitive, screwed up kid for other reasons.
I guess you’re talking about the apprenticeship system that was present in renaissance Europe. In one of the first Republican debates of 2015, I remember a candidate bemoaning the fact that we have largely done away with trade school. It seemed like a good point, because college is now an overpriced degree factory. And some people don’t need more diverse knowledge; they need the practical skills of their trade.
And yet college is also much more available to many people who do benefit from it. Which is to say that if something becomes more egalitarian, more available to the masses, there will be the bottom feeders you critique, and many people who seize on it and use it to develop themselves in the right ways. I can live with that.
I don’t think that subjugating people to peasants on your land raises them up at all.
“A good worker will rise with a good master.”
What if the master is an abusive dickhead? Doesn’t this worker with potential deserve a recourse, such as the public education system?
This touches on certain underlying disagreements we have. I think that top down control always, always contains a greater potential for abuse. I think this abuse is morally wrong and often destroys social value.
I think a society should have a sense of shared values and a drive towards excellent. But I think there are ways to incentivize merit without smashing people in the face. And I do think nurture and care are positive social values.
Though I don’t claim to know how I would restructure an education system.

The last paragraph is only true for bad education systems, though. If you read my large comment above, the solution is to NOT force those with little academic aptitude to study academic subjects. Most people are better served in some sort of ‘trade school’ or apprenticeship.

Because if you DO, standards have to fall. 50 years ago in England, only those who did best at the Grammar School went to University, so about 5% of the population. That has steadily rose, even more so since Tony Blair decided that 50% of people should now have higher education. So, of course, the standards are now so awful that most degrees are not even worth the paper they are written on. The 1st year of a degree is now similar in standard to the old “O-level” for 16 year olds – I’ve seen exams from both.

The stuff about memorisation is also true – but like I said, that isn’t teaching rigorously. In the past, learning masses of data was just taken as a given. But the exams then TESTED you to see if you could apply that knowledge to novel situations. Only about 7% of people got an “A” grade as a result, even at good schools. If you want an idea of how much things have been dumbed down: a new A* grade had to be invented (as so many people were getting A’s) and, at our top private schools (were things are still taught rigorously), 98% of all results from all pupils are now A or A*! ALL must have prizes….

I agree with your comment about intuitive learners but you’ve also got to consider this: even if such a pupil finds class boring, he nonetheless KNOWS that passing the exams is still important to his future. So if he doesn’t try and do well then that’s says something bad about his character. We all have to so things in life we don’t like, for harvest in the future. If you’re not prepared to, don’t expect good things to come your way (as I’m sure you’d agree).

“Saying the Black Plague weeded out weaklings really is very weird for the reason I stated. And it does seem to carry the implication that the poster would definitely have been one of those to survive it.”

If you infer the 2nd sentence from the 1st one, then that implies that YOUR mind cannot understand the concept of somebody supporting an idea that might not benefit THEM personally. You AUTOMATICALLY presumed he was positive about the plague only because HE would be a winner in such a plague. That says something about YOU. It IS possible to support an idea because it is just a good idea, you know…

On the other hand, practically ALL people ARE like you presumed he was, so I’ll reserve judgement, for now.

“If someone is struggling for basic survival, they are not gonna reach their full potential.”
What a crock. Right there is everything that is wrong with pampered, numbskull Westerners.
Since when did basic survival become something not worthy of bothering with or lowering oneself to?
I put it to you that survival is the only useful thing a human needs to achieve. And the more self-sufficient that survival is, the more worthy it becomes.
When you are free of demanding somebody else funds your survival, then you may branch into vitally important things like crochet and quilting.

Crow:
“What a crock. Right there is everything that is wrong with pampered, numbskull Westerners.
Since when did basic survival become something not worthy of bothering with or lowering oneself to?”
Have you bothered to consider the implications of what you are saying? We have achieved a lot of progress since the agricultural revolution, where some excess food allowed us to pursue specialization.

Do you think the military is a pampering, numbskull organization? Because they understand the principle that men with full bellies who are not afraid of being shot in the back by their fellows also fight better.
“It builds character!” shouts the person who has clearly never actually been exposed to such a situation. Some suffering and hardship builds character. But chronic, life threatening suffering due to social injustice rather than actual necessity is a terrible thing. It’s a question of degree, but an enormously important one.
What I’m talking about isn’t even a particularly liberal point of view. It’s an obvious description of the most basic facts of human existence. There are only 24 hours in a day, and even strong people have limits. Therefore some interdependence is necessary.

The fact that you would say otherwise shows you are more committed to a (baseless) sense of personal superiority masking a deep well of frustration and impotence, than any description of human nature or what builds social value.
I challenge you to actually respond to the points I am making rather than just telling me to shut up you idiot.
Separate post coming in response to Brett…

Brett:
“My plan makes that easy. Then they can reach their full potential.”
How? I’ve mostly seen you talk about smashing the masses in the face, so to speak. Admittedly I don’t read all of what you post.

The trade school bit I certainly agree with. Not sure about the grants bit, simply haven’t thought about it. I certainly agree we have too many people at unnecessary, soul crushing jobs. May relate to the fact that we have too many people in the first place.

“If the wealth is honestly earned, it means more capable people are in power.”
You didn’t answer my point. You sidestepped it. You said our social disintegration and cultural decline are due to egalitarianism. I said not necessarily, we aren’t that egalitarian (just a lot of surface level nods to it), look at the wealth distribution. You said okay good it means the more capable are in power. But it isn’t honestly earned and the more capable aren’t in power. Hence all the problems you describe in your article.
Thing is that my sort of people (parasitic wusses) aren’t winning the day, but neither are your sort (reactionaries with an emphasis on traditional caucasion social structures). It’s the neo-cons (sociopaths) and transnational corporations (much larger parasites) who have all the wealth and power. Which is exactly the point.
Wealth and power aren’t being accumulated through a contribution of hard work and genuine social value. It’s about manipulation of the means of production, manipulation of the tax code, manipulation of labor forces, deception and violence. You know, all those things the wussy leftists are always bitching about.

Hence oil companies lobbying against environmental regulations. Hence the military industrial complex profiting from the disastrous Iraq war. Hence the inflation of prices for often unnecessary pharmaceutical medication. Hence private prisons lobbying to strengthen penalties in our obviously failed drug war.
These don’t sound like a just society where the best have won power. These also don’t sound like issues that you can blame on egalitarianism.
“That is why you give power to the best, not the voters, which always exert top down control in voting for the LCD.”
No this is bottom up control, which has its own problems, but I have no idea why you would conflate the two.
Yes there are ways that bottom up control and egalitarianism fail to check cumulative selfishness. But the problem is that the people in power in a top down authoritarian system are also capable of being stupid, insane and evil. If I reference Hitler, will you re-post your adorable facebook photo Brett?

Numerous yes. Greater in scope, I’m not so sure.
And of course, the masses are capable of acting out those same authoritarian tendencies at the behest of the autocrat.
I’ll give the article a look, but not tonight.
I have a great deal of fear and hatred towards authoritarian personalities and political systems. And yet I have been forced to admit that there are problems of cumulative selfishness that a democracy doesn’t seem able to check. At least not with such large populations. Local democracy is a different story. Personally I think I would favor some sort of meritocracy informed by some democratic elements. What constitutes merit in the meritocracy would have to be carefully thought out.
As for the tragedy of the commons, you should look into Ken Wilber’s work. He is the author of integral theory, and talks about the developmental perspective which is opposed to traditional conservativism and liberalism. I’ve referenced him before and no one read the damn links I posted. But Ken Wilber says that the tragedy of the commons has a religious or spiritual element. The de-ensoulment of the world.
Vine Deloria Jr. and the voices in my head say that the deepest shift in viewpoint that would lead to proper relationships with the planet is a religious one rather than an economic or political one.
I also think that a truly egalitarian society would also include a guarantee of basic rights for other species. But that would be a wide reaching, fundamental shift in viewpoint which hopefully happens long term but is impossible short term. Short term some top down force would probably be necessary to deal with our planet’s tanking ecology. But it seems even more likely that we go off the cliff, so to speak, and are forced to correct course painfully not through a political shift but the destruction of the physical life support systems that we now take for granted. Fuck.